3 ms·

Communication multiples due to the number of people involved.

nemo44x 5y ago
I’ve experienced this myself in companies that have gone from <100 people to thousands over a handful of years. In the small days it’s easy to stay current and coordinated with everything. As the company grows new teams are added, there’s more specialization and teams begin looking more inward as their size has grown. You don’t realize it right away but your processes, methods, and networks are breaking down with the new scale and what was once effective stops being so. But it’s hard to detect right away - it’s the “boiled frog” problem. The company defines themes or goals or priorities and small cross team groups are assembled but it only gives the illusion of being coordinated. You still have a bunch of teams vaguely working towards solving a greater problem but not actually working together. There’s a general sense of “losing our way” and disillusion from the veterans who don’t recognize the company anymore and attrition sets in causing even more disillusion and attrition. The company is growing headcount but it seems like everyone is leaving. I think this is the point (hopefully we’ll before) the company realizes the old ways that got them there don’t work so well as to get them to the next place. What I’ve found works is senior management that can not only identify what the company priorities should be but also understand that every team should participate in it and allow the teams to determine how to execute. Defining programs and having coordinators work with the stakeholders helps scale communication and coordination. It’s another layer that wasn’t needed in earlier days of the company but becomes critical in my experience. And the cycle begins again. If the company does achieve the next level of scale similar problems will set in as coordinating 3000 people is just as different than coordinating 15,000 as it was from 700 to 3000. More layers of indirection are required.
- mellavora 5y ago
  The fun thing about Dunbar's number is that he nails these transitions pretty cleanly. The breaks happen (roughly) at every 3x in growth. What works for 5 people works for 15, but breaks at 16 (plus/minus 2, depends on the team). What works for 16 works up to 45/50 (3X15). Next breakpoint at 150 (3x50), the 'classic' Dunbar number. likewise at 500, 1500, 4K,... and it all comes down to communication bandwidth. The same scaling laws which lead to the cortical columns in the visual cortex specializing into different kinds of signal detection (edges, motion, ...). You can only maintain close connections with so many people.

I’ve experienced this myself in companies that have gone from <100 people to thousands over a handful of years. In the small days it’s easy to stay current and coordinated with everything. As the company grows new teams are added, there’s more specialization and teams begin looking more inward as their size has grown. You don’t realize it right away but your processes, methods, and networks are breaking down with the new scale and what was once effective stops being so. But it’s hard to detect right away - it’s the “boiled frog” problem. The company defines themes or goals or priorities and small cross team groups are assembled but it only gives the illusion of being coordinated. You still have a bunch of teams vaguely working towards solving a greater problem but not actually working together. There’s a general sense of “losing our way” and disillusion from the veterans who don’t recognize the company anymore and attrition sets in causing even more disillusion and attrition. The company is growing headcount but it seems like everyone is leaving. I think this is the point (hopefully we’ll before) the company realizes the old ways that got them there don’t work so well as to get them to the next place. What I’ve found works is senior management that can not only identify what the company priorities should be but also understand that every team should participate in it and allow the teams to determine how to execute. Defining programs and having coordinators work with the stakeholders helps scale communication and coordination. It’s another layer that wasn’t needed in earlier days of the company but becomes critical in my experience. And the cycle begins again. If the company does achieve the next level of scale similar problems will set in as coordinating 3000 people is just as different than coordinating 15,000 as it was from 700 to 3000. More layers of indirection are required.

mellavora 5y ago
The fun thing about Dunbar's number is that he nails these transitions pretty cleanly. The breaks happen (roughly) at every 3x in growth. What works for 5 people works for 15, but breaks at 16 (plus/minus 2, depends on the team). What works for 16 works up to 45/50 (3X15). Next breakpoint at 150 (3x50), the 'classic' Dunbar number. likewise at 500, 1500, 4K,... and it all comes down to communication bandwidth. The same scaling laws which lead to the cortical columns in the visual cortex specializing into different kinds of signal detection (edges, motion, ...). You can only maintain close connections with so many people.